|
How do we know that there wasn't a flag there when he started speaking and someone dropped it behind him as a practical joke? Also, don't mention the war! I mentioned it once, but I think I got away with it!
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 06:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 19:24 |
|
|
Wolfsheim posted:This is where the mask comes off and he reveals himself to be pulling the longest troll in SA's history, right? I've been thinking about this off and on for a while, especially recently, and the honest truth is that jrode is a well-meaning and passionate person who has been completely taken in by libertarianism and lacks the intellectual capacity to find his way out of it. The troll's M.O. is to put in as little effort as possible in order to obtain the maximum emotional / effortful response, and if there's one thing nobody could accuse jrode of, it's low-effort posts.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 06:13
|
|
|
Cemetry Gator posted:How do we know that there wasn't a flag there when he started speaking and someone dropped it behind him as a practical joke? I know the best way to convince people of my position is to drop a flag behind them when they're unsuspectingly making a speech. Real Winners
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 08:01
|
|
|
Cemetry Gator posted:How do we know that there wasn't a flag there when he started speaking and someone dropped it behind him as a practical joke?  Poor Ron Paul 
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 09:24
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Where did I mention the League of the South? I am genuinely curious but to my knowledge this recent event that Ron Paul and others spoke at was a regular Mises Circle event that the Mises Institute has held for years. It's been covered but yeah, asking us to debate the substance of a speech given by a founding member of the League of the South on secession is loving hilarious. Especially since he whines so much about how people ate going to take things and turn them against him.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 11:56
|
|
|
Goddammit, I just wanted to hear his defense of Argumentation Ethics. Why did he have to go all "who says the League of the South is necessarily racist? Lots of countries have a south!" on us? At this point I'm just wondering where the line is. Supporting literal klansmen's senate runs and speaking in front of an explicitly neo-confederate rally and hosting a regular conference for "race realists" and writing articles in support of Nazi "racialist science" are all firmly on the not-racist side apparently, and I was going to write a hyperbolic joke about what else he'd defend but I'm coming up empty on stuff more ridiculous than what he's already done. Libertarians must hate free speech, because they make satire impossible.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 13:45
|
|
|
Did I read that correctly? Human trouser-stain Max Boot took a look at Jrod's little dream team and their speeches and went "Nope, screw you guys, this is ridiculous"? I honestly never thought I'd meet a more closed, leashed, cognitively dissonant person than the time i interviewed a north korean diplomat, but there you go, Jrod. Scary that both systems managed to achieve the same results, huh? You should be proud.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 13:52
|
|
|
Nolanar posted:Goddammit, I just wanted to hear his defense of Argumentation Ethics. Why did he have to go all "who says the League of the South is necessarily racist? Lots of countries have a south!" on us? At this point I'm just wondering where the line is. Supporting literal klansmen's senate runs and speaking in front of an explicitly neo-confederate rally and hosting a regular conference for "race realists" and writing articles in support of Nazi "racialist science" are all firmly on the not-racist side apparently, and I was going to write a hyperbolic joke about what else he'd defend but I'm coming up empty on stuff more ridiculous than what he's already done. Libertarians must hate free speech, because they make satire impossible. Whoa whoa he's just going where the science leads instead of dogmatically closing off a branch of scientific inquiry just because its conclusions are "racialist". Typical liberal, so obsessed with political correctness that scientific facts about the genetic inferiority of the African races won't even penetrate
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 15:09
|
|
|
Hey jrodefeld, I would appreciate a response to my taking five minutes to prove that every single speaker at the event you linked is a despicable Neo-Confederate racist.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 15:23
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Hey jrodefeld, I would appreciate a response to my taking five minutes to prove that every single speaker at the event you linked is a despicable Neo-Confederate racist. Now, don't push the man too hard. You can't rush these things. He'll need three months or so, so that he can find sources, do proper research and compose a well thought out and reasoned reply.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 16:07
|
|
TLM3101 posted:Now, don't push the man too hard. You can't rush these things. He'll need three months or so to copy and paste a Mises article so that he can make it look like he's gone off to find sources, do proper research and compose a well thought out and reasoned reply. FTFY.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 16:11
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 20:51
|
|
|
Ograbme posted:Of loving course the very first sentence about apartheid is about how it affects gold prices. It all comes back to gold buggery. Libertarians are literally Gollum
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 20:54
|
|
|
In 1950s Mississippi the life of a black boy wasn't worth a whistle. To Ron Paul and his ilk the life of a black South African gold miner isn't worth his weight in gold.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 20:55
|
|
|
Jerry Manderbilt posted:In 1950s Mississippi the life of a black boy wasn't worth a whistle. They'd claim that is an improvement 
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 21:32
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Yes democratic elections or changes in policy can change how much income they take in a given year but any right that can be taken merely by democratic whim or legislative flight of fancy is certainly not a right in any real sense. This is from a little while back, and a few people already commented on this it I want to go a little deeper. You seem to be laboring under the assumption that rights are inherent and fundamental, that you get them simply by dint of existing. But you don't. You and every other human being on earth only have rights because society, and more specifically governments, say that you do. Society as a whole agrees which exact rights you have and then tasks the government with protecting, enforcing, adjudicating those rights. And you're absolutely correct that those rights can be taken away at any time because of this. In a completely anarchistic world you have no rights at all. You don't have a right to property, because anyone can just shoot you in the face and take all your poo poo with no repercussions. You don't even have a right to self-ownership because someone bigger and stronger than you could come up and beat the poo poo out of you and enslave you and you couldn't do poo poo about it. Rights aren't magical, they won't protect you in those situations no matter how much you assert that they will. You might have the moral high ground but that'll be of little comfort when you're robbed, enslaved, or dead. Might makes right, and those with the most power decide who has what rights. It's been like that since the dawn of time. Now I know that you believe that your world would have DROs to protect your rights for you, but your rights are no more secure in this system and in fact would be ten times more tenuous than they are in what you believe to be our state led hellhole. How can you claim to have inviolable rights when simply missing a single payment with your DRO can strip them all away from you? Or being dropped because you become too expensive of a liability? Or hell, dropped for no reason at all. Furthermore when your rights are directly tied to how much you're willing to pay to have them protected all you're doing is creating a system where only the rich have any rights at all, or at best where the rich can violate the rights of the poor with impunity. People who can only afford 10 copper pieces a month for Cut-Throat DRO aren't going to be winning any cases against people in the Triple-Star-Platinum plans from Blue Blood DRO. Let me reiterate to be clear: in your world rights and justice aren't inherent, they simply bought. Our current system is riddled with issues, no argument here, but how the hell can you pretend that yours is superior?
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 21:59
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Now I know that you believe that your world would have DROs to protect your rights for you, but your rights are no more secure in this system and in fact would be ten times more tenuous than they are in what you believe to be our state led hellhole. How can you claim to have inviolable rights when simply missing a single payment with your DRO can strip them all away from you? Or being dropped because you become too expensive of a liability? Or hell, dropped for no reason at all. Charging the poor higher policing premiums for choosing to live in a bad neighborhood is the benevolent market's way of incentivizing them to stop deciding to be poor. You should love it libs, aren't you always complaining about segregated neighborhoods? Well finally there's a financial penalty on those Africans who choose to self-segregate! SedanChair posted:Hey jrodefeld, I would appreciate a response to my taking five minutes to prove that every single speaker at the event you linked is a despicable Neo-Confederate racist. That proves nothing because unless you can jedi mind-meld me to those speakers, then you haven't proven whether they are racists who want blacks to be property because they hate them, or whether they want blacks to be property for non-racist reasons like a sincere belief that a genetically lower average IQ makes them incapable of managing their own affairs without the benevolent oversight of a better breed of men. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 23:54 on Jan 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 22:25
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:This is from a little while back, and a few people already commented on this it I want to go a little deeper. You seem to be laboring under the assumption that rights are inherent and fundamental, that you get them simply by dint of existing. But you don't. You and every other human being on earth only have rights because society, and more specifically governments, say that you do. Society as a whole agrees which exact rights you have and then tasks the government with protecting, enforcing, adjudicating those rights. And you're absolutely correct that those rights can be taken away at any time because of this. I'm starting to think that the reason jrode breezes past any questions of the practical applications of an-cap but gets really, really fixated on accusations of racism is because he doesn't really care about practicality. The moral high ground is the only thing that matters. It doesn't matter that life would be objectively worse for the majority of the population almost immediately, because morally it would be a better society. Notice he has no real answer for how a stateless society would handle a dispute between DROs that couldn't be resolved peacefully. It doesn't matter and he doesn't care, because no taxes were paid at any point and that's the important thing. Accusations of racism, however, attack that moral high ground, which is why it riles him up so much. If every other prominent figure of the movement he's spent the last several years believing in is racist that might suggest that racism informs their philosophy. But because libertarianism is perfect that cannot be true, so it's all just race-baiting progressives and a string of coincidental ties to neo-Confederate groups that are in no way relevant.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 23:48
|
|
|
Wolfsheim posted:I'm starting to think that the reason jrode breezes past any questions of the practical applications of an-cap but gets really, really fixated on accusations of racism is because he doesn't really care about practicality. The moral high ground is the only thing that matters. This is true and he has said as much in this thread. The means justify the ends. jrod, this "secession" thing is another example of our discussion from a few pages back where you generalize so much that you can no longer conceptualize individuals. It's imperative that you understand that when we discuss issues, we ultimately have to place them inside a historical and material context.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 00:19
|
|
|
Wolfsheim posted:I'm starting to think that the reason jrode breezes past any questions of the practical applications of an-cap but gets really, really fixated on accusations of racism is because he doesn't really care about practicality. The moral high ground is the only thing that matters. It doesn't matter that life would be objectively worse for the majority of the population almost immediately, because morally it would be a better society. Notice he has no real answer for how a stateless society would handle a dispute between DROs that couldn't be resolved peacefully. It doesn't matter and he doesn't care, because no taxes were paid at any point and that's the important thing. That being the case, I'm quite willing to say that an anarcho-capitalist society would be hideously immoral even if by some miracle it were completely free from racial prejudice.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 00:25
|
|
|
Wolfsheim posted:I'm starting to think that the reason jrode breezes past any questions of the practical applications of an-cap but gets really, really fixated on accusations of racism is because he doesn't really care about practicality. The moral high ground is the only thing that matters. It doesn't matter that life would be objectively worse for the majority of the population almost immediately, because morally it would be a better society. Notice he has no real answer for how a stateless society would handle a dispute between DROs that couldn't be resolved peacefully. It doesn't matter and he doesn't care, because no taxes were paid at any point and that's the important thing. Pretty much. This is why I want to debate Jrod about the morality of libertarianism and the NAP rather than something concrete like healthcare efficacy. That and the fact I'm too lazy to do the legwork for such a topic.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 00:29
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Pretty much. This is why I want to debate Jrod about the morality of libertarianism and the NAP rather than something concrete like healthcare efficacy. That and the fact I'm too lazy to do the legwork for such a topic. We've tried less politicized topics like infrastructure and telecommunications but it seems libertarians in general can't cope with any subject matter that wasn't addressed by 19th century libertarians already. NAP doesn't really interest me as a topic because the only reason libertarians care about aggression at all is they want to carve out some sort of fictional moral high ground by attributing all the regulations and concerns about the commons and general good as evils wraught on them. Ultimately as Jrod has displayed its not about racism with libertarians, its an extension of all prosperity gospel, self governance as the only pure form of liberty and ultimately unchecked selfishness. Racism gets Jrod in a tizzy because it implies he actively thinks about the value of others outside himself. If there is one and only one thing you take away from libertarianism in this thread; libertarianism is the ultimate expression of selfishness. It doesn't consider how people will be affected, it's only interested in what it affords the practitioner and what they can get away with. It's not racist to Jrod because what happens to anyone regardless of skin color in libertopia is unimportant, only that the platonic ideal of freedom remains untainted by the state, drat whatever the consequences may be.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 01:07
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:That proves nothing because unless you can jedi mind-meld me to those speakers, then you haven't proven whether they are racists who want blacks to be property because they hate them, or whether they want blacks to be property for non-racist reasons like a sincere belief that a genetically lower average IQ makes them incapable of managing their own affairs without the benevolent oversight of a better breed of men. According to Jrod's posting, this has only ever happened in two recorded instances; once to prove Lincoln is racist because of that one quote about preserving the union is kinda racist if you take it totally out of context and misquote it, and once more to prove LBJ is racist because there's a quote that may or may not be by him where he says if the Democrats do some civil rights reform, black people will vote for them. All other instances of alleged racism, such as efforts to found or refound the CSA, are actually just attempts to create more free societies.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 02:49
|
|
|
DrProsek posted:According to Jrod's posting, this has only ever happened in two recorded instances; once to prove Lincoln is racist because of that one quote about preserving the union is kinda racist if you take it totally out of context and misquote it, and once more to prove LBJ is racist because there's a quote that may or may not be by him where he says if the Democrats do some civil rights reform, black people will vote for them. All other instances of alleged racism, such as efforts to found or refound the CSA, are actually just attempts to create more free societies. Wait has he actually argued that Lincoln and LBJ are oreal racists? jfc
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 02:59
|
|
|
The second thread I ever saw jrod posting in he was  -ing about all the lost property wealth (read: slaves) in the South after the Civil War.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 03:02
|
|
|
Ron Paul Atreides posted:Wait has he actually argued that Lincoln and LBJ are oreal racists? jfc Of course he did, in service of trying to prove the Civil War was unnecessary/secession wasn't really that bad, and the Civil Rights Act was nothing more than a cynical statist power play to deprive people of their liberty. I tried to exaggerate that last sentence, but found I couldn't.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 03:03
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:Of course he did, in service of trying to prove the Civil War was unnecessary/secession wasn't really that bad, and the Civil Rights Act was nothing more than a cynical statist power play to deprive people of their liberty. Jesus Christ I figured he probably had a really unsavory view of the CRA given he was a Ron Paul fanboy, but as a nonwhite person the fact that people actually think this really makes me angry. I guess my rights aren't as important as Ron Paul's rights to poo poo all over me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 03:05
|
|
|
Jerry Manderbilt posted:Jesus Christ I figured he probably had a really unsavory view of the CRA given he was a Ron Paul fanboy, but as a nonwhite person the fact that people actually think this really makes me angry. I guess my rights aren't as important as Ron Paul's rights to poo poo all over me. In his view, only one of those counts as immoral aggression, and it ain't when Ron Paul smiles unnervingly at you as he lowers his trousers, and begins to squat.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 03:06
|
|
|
DrProsek posted:According to Jrod's posting, this has only ever happened in two recorded instances; once to prove Lincoln is racist because of that one quote about preserving the union is kinda racist if you take it totally out of context and misquote it, and once more to prove LBJ is racist because there's a quote that may or may not be by him where he says if the Democrats do some civil rights reform, black people will vote for them. All other instances of alleged racism, such as efforts to found or refound the CSA, are actually just attempts to create more free societies. Didn't LBJ say "we have lost the south for a generation" as a result of the progress he made on civil rights? Hm, yes, the incredibly savvy political operator made the conscious decision to altogether abandon his party's traditional power base in order to get the votes of an impoverished 15% or so of the population with the aim of improving the Democrats' standing. I cannot fathom how anyone, even jrode, could be thick enough to believe such tripe.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 03:27
|
|
|
Ron Paul Atreides posted:Wait has he actually argued that Lincoln and LBJ are oreal racists? jfc But of course! In fact, he was such a massive racist, he was totally just about to deport all the former slaves after the civil war was over. jrodefeld posted:It, of course, is entirely legitimate to use violence against those 6% who were enslaving black people and denying their self ownership and dignity, but waging war on "the South" because the political classes in those States decided to secede is not compatible with any concept of morality imaginable. On LBJ: jrodefeld posted:Left Progressivism has a LONG history of racism and supremacists attitudes, but I wouldn't imply that most progressives are racist because of the sordid history of the movement. If I were to pull up the quotes of everyone from Woodrow Wilson to FDR to Lyndon Johnson, you would be quite shocked to hear the sort of racism they casually used and the people they surrounded themselves used. Johnson in particular was well known to have regularly used the n-word in casual conversation. To recap, "I want negros to vote for us by giving them some token civil rights" is so racist our heads should be spinning* but HHH wanting to create pure Aryan neighborhoods, free of blacks, gays, and leftists, well that's just him wanting his property rights back that the state has stolen from him. *To be fair, yes LBJ was racist in saying that if he actually did but supposing it's 100% a legit quote, I'd still say if the greatest scandal he can find is "LBJ had some dehumanizing racist views towards black people but supported at least some civil rights progress in spite of that", Libertarianism would still be far, far worse off than not-Libertarianism.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 03:35
|
|
|
You know, for a while I genuinely was hopeful that I could have a productive and interesting discussion about libertarianism and leftism on this forum. That may still be possible but the sheer number of overtly intellectually dishonest responses makes that now seem unlikely. It seems instead of seeking common ground or trying to understand the perspective of your opponent, you are instead intent upon distorting, misquoting and contorting every thing I say to conform to your own prejudices. Like I mentioned a while ago, you guys obsess over the alleged racism supposedly inherent in libertarian philosophy all on your own without my participation. Then when I respond you display mock indignation. "Why on earth would you react with anger to our repeated claims that everything you believe in is merely a front for white supremacy and racism and that nearly all libertarian intellectuals are closet or overt racists who believe in the inherent superiority of the European race? Also, you just want all the poor to die on the streets because you hate everyone who is not like you because you are a selfish sociopath who lacks any empathy." Hm, why would I take offense to repeatedly claims such as this? You'd think I was exaggerating but I am characterizing your intellectually dishonest attacks pretty well. Putting aside the question of whether there is a problem with racism in the libertarian tradition, responding in this matter forestalls any productive discussion. You poison the well and you automatically destroy whatever potential conceivably existed for policy debate and a good faith exchange of ideas. It's like, "Yes, I believe you are a KKK member who has white robes in your closet and who wants to resurrect Jim Crow laws in the South. Now, on another topic, let's talk about your theory of property and fiat money?" No, gently caress you. You don't insult my character, hurl unsubstantiated smears against me and the things I believe in and then expect to have a respectful discussion on the substance of these ideas. Honestly, I should have expected as much from Marxists. A Marxist remaining respectful when speaking to a proponent of free market capitalism is as likely as Lenin propounding the virtue of private ownership of the means of production. Honestly, this recent pile on about the Mises event in Houston Texas was a bridge too far. Everyone there was accused of White Supremacy because they dared to discuss the political concept of decentralization in, of all places, TEXAS! Because I am sure you'd give them the benefit of the doubt if they were discussing the principle of secession in New York or Massachusetts. Various members on these boards went on and on as if the event was hosted by the League of the South and was, necessarily, Neo-Confederate, southern and racist. The only tenuous link to anything close to supposed "neo-confederacy" was the fact that Tom Woods was one of the speakers and he supposedly was a "founding member" of the League. The implication here is that every other speaker must agree with the LotS because ONE of their speakers was said to have some connection to them. But even this supposed connection is fraudulent. In the early 1990s, when Tom Woods was in his early 20s and wasn't even a libertarian yet, he participated in the forming of an organization he was told was to be dedicated to decentralization. He participated to influence the charter and purpose of this fledgling organization. He argued that the organization should be dedicated to the principle of decentralization as a general principle, NOT as a Southern specific organization. He was outvoted and the organization became a "Southern" decentralist advocacy group. Since that initial founding, the group moved more towards southern conservatism and, to use the term in its broadest sense, neo-confederatism. This was expressly NOT what Tom advocated for or supports. And his participation came literally seven or eight years before he converted to libertarianism and dropped his previous conservatism. Even now, Tom frequently recants and apologizes for being a "stupid conservative" when he was young in the 90s. He was duped and mislead. He listened to Rush Limbaugh and supported George H.W. Bush against Bill Clinton. You can claim that the League still lists Tom as a contributor or founder or whatever, but it is abundantly clear that Tom is worlds separated from the LotS and doesn't support their southern focus. How could you label an anarchist a Neo-Confederate anyway? The Confederacy was a STATE. The Confederate constitution has VERY little in it that any libertarian could support, not least of which was a support for the institution of slavery. This is incredibly dishonest for you to use this incredibly tenuous link that Tom Woods has, to suppose that all the speakers support the Confederacy and only are speaking of secession and decentralization so they could bring back Jim Crow and establish a White dominated culture that only wants to oppress people. This is beyond intellectually dishonest. It is deceitful and outrageous. Then Caros made some claim that Ron Paul personally endorsed David Duke when he ran for Congress or he hangs out with former KKK Grand Wizards and all these discredited smears. None of it is true. It is slander and deception by people who attempt every trick conceivable to discredit Paul by circuitously linking every unsavory figure to him in the most outlandish ways. "See, this guy who hates Jews had his picture taken with Ron at some campaign event!" It is ridiculous and no serious person would dig so far into the gutter to slander and defame someone, especially if they value the intellectual discourse that is possible if you make a good faith effort to exchange ideas and debate the substance of a proposition. Maybe I was wrong to suppose that constructive debate was possible here. I'll continue to get into some substantive points, but only if you demonstrate a willingness to elevate this discussion and refrain from the libelous and inflammatory accusations.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 04:31
|
|
|
quote:Left Progressivism has a LONG history of racism and supremacists attitudes, but I wouldn't imply that most progressives are racist because of the sordid history of the movement. If I were to pull up the quotes of everyone from Woodrow Wilson to FDR to Lyndon Johnson, you would be quite shocked to hear the sort of racism they casually used and the people they surrounded themselves used. Johnson in particular was well known to have regularly used the n-word in casual conversation. Like most libertarians, you are utterly ignoring the context. The key reason LBJ was able to get civil rights legislation passed when literally every other attempt since reconstruction had failed was because he was able to convince the Dixiecrats using phrasing like this. In this quotation, he was speaking to his friend, Richard Russel, the Giant of Georgia and commander-in-chief of senate segregationists, who had been thwarting civil rights laws for decades. What Johnson did was use his personal relationship and "in-group" bona fides to convince southern senators that civil rights legislation was both inevitable and necessary for him, Johnson, to be elected president. He kept stringing them along, saying "if you just give me this little reform, it will give your old pal Lyndon enough support from those liberals to send him to the Oval Office. Once I'm there, you'll have someone you know to be sympathetic (because I say things like friend of the family and am from Texas) to the negro issue as President." Of course, once he actually attained the presidency, he threw his old southern senate buddies under the bus, because for all of LBJ's flaws he did actually care about the poor and downtrodden.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 04:39
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:You don't insult my character, hurl unsubstantiated smears against me and the things I believe in and then expect to have a respectful discussion on the substance of these ideas. Right back at you, you bag of diseased dicks.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 04:42
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:You know, for a while I genuinely was hopeful that I could have a productive and interesting discussion about libertarianism and leftism on this forum. That may still be possible but the sheer number of overtly intellectually dishonest responses makes that now seem unlikely. It seems instead of seeking common ground or trying to understand the perspective of your opponent, you are instead intent upon distorting, misquoting and contorting every thing I say to conform to your own prejudices. You failed to answer legitimate questions posed to you, ignored legitimate points made, and WE'RE the ones not being productive? jrodefeld posted:Like I mentioned a while ago, you guys obsess over the alleged racism supposedly inherent in libertarian philosophy all on your own without my participation. Then when I respond you display mock indignation. "Why on earth would you react with anger to our repeated claims that everything you believe in is merely a front for white supremacy and racism and that nearly all libertarian intellectuals are closet or overt racists who believe in the inherent superiority of the European race? Also, you just want all the poor to die on the streets because you hate everyone who is not like you because you are a selfish sociopath who lacks any empathy." Hm, why would I take offense to repeatedly claims such as this? You'd think I was exaggerating but I am characterizing your intellectually dishonest attacks pretty well. When the substance of the stands your chosen sources make is DIRECTLY influenced by their racist stances, it is VERY pertinent to the discussion.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 04:49
|
|
|
sorry to everyone trying to actually debate this rear end in a top hat for this; Deep throat a revolver and pull the trigger you worthless pile of human garbage.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 04:51
|
|
|
Oh no you guys, JRod might might pack up his walls of text that ignore the conversation and Mises.org links and go home, never to ignore almost every substantive point made by others again! Whatever shall we do! Oh, but if we're real good he'll condescend to preach at us again! Jrodefeld, you seem to be laboring under the misconception that we do not understand the libertarian view. We do. And we find it utterly loathsome.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 04:56
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:
jrodefeld posted:This was expressly NOT what Tom advocated for or supports. And his participation came literally seven or eight years before he converted to libertarianism and dropped his previous conservatism. Even now, Tom frequently recants and apologizes for being a "stupid conservative" when he was young in the 90s. He was duped and mislead. He listened to Rush Limbaugh and supported George H.W. Bush against Bill Clinton. jrodefeld posted:Then Caros made some claim that Ron Paul personally endorsed David Duke when he ran for Congress or he hangs out with former KKK Grand Wizards and all these discredited smears. None of it is true. It is slander and deception by people who attempt every trick conceivable to discredit Paul by circuitously linking every unsavory figure to him in the most outlandish ways. "See, this guy who hates Jews had his picture taken with Ron at some campaign event!" jrodefeld posted:Maybe I was wrong to suppose that constructive debate was possible here. I'll continue to get into some substantive points, but only if you demonstrate a willingness to elevate this discussion and refrain from the libelous and inflammatory accusations.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 04:59
|
|
|
Guys I'm just here to talk about issues and policy *ignores several pages of questions about healthcare, argumentation ethics, the NAP and DROs yet zeroes in on every racism accusation like a hawk* gently caress off jrode, you couldn't be more transparent about your unwillingness to actually debate anything if you tried. Half your posts in this thread are you acting offended about racism or making GBS threads out mises links.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 05:04
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Maybe I was wrong to suppose that constructive debate was possible here. I'll continue to get into some substantive points, but only if you demonstrate a willingness to elevate this discussion and refrain from the libelous and inflammatory accusations. Also, even if we take out the racism angle, we're still left with inane stuff like argumentation ethics and praxeology.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 05:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 19:24 |
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Maybe I was wrong to suppose that constructive debate was possible here. I'll continue to get into some substantive points, but only if you demonstrate a willingness to elevate this discussion and refrain from the libelous and inflammatory accusations. I'd like to know exactly how any of the accusations made against, say, Ron Paul, could be construed as libelous.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 05:05
|
|